Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense...and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.

Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.

p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times

You can call bullshit all you want - you would be wrong. You call bullshit on lots of things where reality conflicts with with the world according saden1. Nothing new there.

Whether admitted in the indictment, introduced by the prosecution during the trial or placed into controversy by the defendant, once raised, it is the State's burden to prove your guilt. Your analogy is miles away from GZ's claim and, in these matters, the devil is in the details. You may claim it. but without something more, (injuries, evidence of a fight, someone hearing you screaming for help), it will be pretty easy to overcome a simple "uhh, he tried to kill me - yeah, that's the ticket!" defense.

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant, as to each material allegation in the information, through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Unlike your simplistic, devoid of facts example, in this case, by their own admission, and as demonstrated through their own evidence, the State has placed Zimm's self-defense claim at issue and now bears the burden of proof and persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I ask you again: Through the admitted evidence, and without speculation or argumentative characterizations, demonstrate that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt such that the claim is invalidated as to any one of the five elements necesary for a valid claim of self-defense.